And committed genocide against the original inhabitants and wiped out vast numbers of species. So, yeah, laws against Fake News as defined by a bunch of religious maniacs are great.
The "genocide" of native Americans was a result of European diseases, not barbarism.[1] As the people had no idea of germ theory, it is impossible to claim this was intentional.
Well that's an oversimplification. Diseases wiped out 90% before they ever saw a soldier. BUT...
'Instead, when the Indians were ready to leave, Trent wrote: "Out of our regard for them, we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect."' -- http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/spring04/warfare.c...
More commonly rumored to be used by British against Americans, though.
How is it an oversimplification if 90% of the population decrease was because of initial contact, not overt actions by the Europeans against the natives?
Do you really need this spelled out, like for real? Your statement that the genocide was not due to overt actions by Europeans is false. Accidentally wiping out 90% of a population through spread of disease is one thing. Deliberately killing off much of the rest is another.. you seem to think of that as a rounding error lol? I also provided a citation in which an American soldier admits to attempting to infect natives with small pox, despite his lack of germ theory. This also explicitly contradicts your account.
Yes, the number killed by warfare is a rounding error in this context. And finding a single instance where someone suggested (there is no proof it was carried out) trying to infect the natives is an anecdote, not proof of a systematic program of biological warfare.